Why can't some people understand that Evolution is not Atheism.

[tumbleweed41]

The principle attribute of God is the morality that He stands for. God is never defined in the Old Testament, so questions about the nature of God are irrelevant. What matters is God's morality, and if you hate that, then you hate God. For more, please read Karaite Skepticism.

And why the fascination with your god?
Atheism includes a lack of belief in every deity.
Do atheist hate Krishna? Do they hate Baal Hammon? Or Tarhunt? Do they hate the morals of Nüwa or Lugh?

You seem to be a bit Bibliocentric in your attack on atheism.

 

[fschmidt]

And why the fascination with your god?
Atheism includes a lack of belief in every deity.
Do atheist hate Krishna? Do they hate Baal Hammon? Or Tarhunt? Do they hate the morals of Nüwa or Lugh?

You seem to be a bit Bibliocentric in your attack on atheism.

I don't know those religions. I have no doubt that Atheists would hate Confucianism if it was a force in the world today, and they wouldn't be so fond of Buddhism if they actually understood it. I actually like most of the world's religions, I only hate Liberalism of which Atheism is a sect.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

While I agree with you that many theists (such as myself) subscribe to evolutionist views, it is also true that many atheist people (like militant atheists) take monopoly of evolution or disregard theistic evolutionists; many believe evolution disproves God - and this is something widespread which cannot be denied.

What I reject and deny is the gross generalization he made. Evolution itself has absolutely nothing to do with Atheism.

What Jared was saying about youtube videos is true and I have checked that myself. The attacks against creationists quickly generalize into attacks to theists.

And vice-versa. There are many, many youtube videos of theist attacking Evolution as well as linking Evolution, Atheism and Communism all in one but Evolution is none of these things.

Also you said "it's defended by Atheist because the evidence is testable". Maybe you should say "by scientists"

Nope. I said exactly what I meant. In fact I (did) say scientist (biologist). The Atheist that I know, outside of RF and here at RF argue the facts of Evolution on the grounds that the Evidence is observable, testable and repeatable..

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The principle attribute of God is the morality that He stands for.

How so?

God is never defined in the Old Testament, so questions about the nature of God are irrelevant.

WHAT????

Are you serious?

Simply because "God" isn't defined by the OT does not in any way make questions about his/her/its nature irrelevant unless you, by fiat, limit what you can know about any existent God(s) to the just what the Old Testament describes.

I can see no valid reason to do that.

What matters is God's morality, and if you hate that, then you hate God.

That still makes no sense. In order to "hate God's morality" and therefore, according to your assertion, "hate God", I would have to believe that:

A) God exists.

B) The Old Testament was either laid down or inspired by that God.

C) The Old Testament accurately reflects the morality of that God.

I have no reason to believe any of that is actually true.

I do disapprove of a lot of the Old Testament's morality, but I still don't see how -because of that- I could be accused of hating god.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I actually like most of the world's religions, I only hate Liberalism of which Atheism is a sect.

What makes you think atheism is "a sect of liberalism"?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The issue is the belief that evolution is an unintentional, undirected, ultimately goalless and purposeless process.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

This view is contradictory to belief that a God intentionally created us for a purpose.

Ahh, I see.....so all you have for us is "belief".

So do you accept the facts of Evolution through theist means or do you reject Evolution altogether?

Anyone who believes my atheistic brand of evolution, and still claims to be a theist, is either deeply confused or a liar.

What are you talking about? Evolution is a biological process through various mechanisms. It has nothing to do with Atheism.

 

[RubyEyes]

And vice-versa. There many, many youtube videos of theist attacking Evolution as well as linking Evolution, Atheism and Communism all in one but Evolution is none of these things.

Yes sure. There's people of all kinds.

Nope. I said exactly what I meant. In fact I (did) say scientist (biologist). The Atheist that I know, outside of RF and here at RF argue the facts of Evolution on the grounds that the Evidence is observable, testable and repeatable..

Mmm but why do you capitalize it? Are you refering to somebody specifically? Or you mean just atheists? Sure most atheists claim to have that basis, but not everybody who self-identifies as atheist is the thoughtful, scientific mind you present; many are just atheist without thought due to misunderstandings of religion (for example, they believe evolution precludes from belief in God) or just because of trends. Just like many people are religious because of their families - I'm aware of this too, I just want to emphasize it goes both ways.

 

[fschmidt]

Simply because "God" isn't defined by the OT does not in any way make questions about his/her/its nature irrelevant unless you, by fiat, limit what you can know about any existent God(s) to the just what the Old Testament describes.

I can see no valid reason to do that.

You are taking a Christian perspective here, which makes sense because Liberalism is an offshoot of Christianity. In most religions, belief is not the key point. So for example, in Judaism obeying the Torah is what matters, in Buddhism it is your mental state that matters, in Confucianism it is your behavior that matters, etc. So the sensible way to classify religions is by their values, not their beliefs. Difference in belief (doctrine) may distinguish sects at most. This is why Atheism is a sect of Liberalism. Confucianists may not believe in God, but they have nothing of significance is common with Atheists.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Mmm but why do you capitalize it? Are you refering to somebody specifically? Or you mean just atheists?

Isn't it all the same thing? I never really paid any attention to the fact that I capitalized the first letter.

Sure most atheists claim to have that basis, but not everybody who self-identifies as atheist is the thoughtful, scientific mind you present.

Nor was I suggesting that. I found issue with his generalization of Atheists on a whole. Throughout his rhetoric I saw no acknowledgement of those Atheist who aren't militant God hating heathens. And his premise that Evolution is somehow linked to Atheism or vice-versa is unfounded.

many are just atheist without thought due to misunderstandings of religion (for example, they believe evolution precludes from belief in God)

Again, the sword cuts both ways. There are some theist that believe a god created the world in a literal seven days, flooded the Earth cause he coped a tude with his creation and murdered every living thing on the planet except for a few chosen...despite all the contrary evidence. Some of these people will even argue tooth and nail and deny Biological Evolution regardless of the evidence.

Just like many people are religious because of their families - I'm aware of this too, I just want to emphasize it goes both ways.

I agree 100% but I don't know if (Jammer) is in 100% agreement though.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't know those religions. I have no doubt that Atheists would hate Confucianism if it was a force in the world today, and they wouldn't be so fond of Buddhism if they actually understood it. I actually like most of the world's religions, I only hate Liberalism of which Atheism is a sect.

You obviously don't know much about about Confucianism (a humanistic philosophy, not a religion) or Buddhism (at it's core, a religion without a deity).

Nor does it seem you know much about Liberalism (a belief in liberty and equality) or Atheism (a lack of belief in deities).

But do go on, I find your redefinitions to be very revealing.

 

[RubyEyes]

Isn't it all the same thing? I never really paid any attention to the fact that I capitalized the first letter.

Oh, sure. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some extra meaning.

Nor was I suggesting that. I found issue with his generalization of Atheists on a whole. Throughout his rhetoric I saw no acknowledgement of those Atheist who aren't militant God hating heathens. And his premise that Evolution is somehow linked to Atheism or vice-versa is unfounded.

I see what you mean.

Again, the sword cuts both ways. There are some theist that believe a god created the world in a literal seven days, flooded the Earth cause he coped a tude with his creation and murdered every living thing on the planet except for a few chosen...despite all the contrary evidence. Some of these people will even argue tooth and nail and deny Biological Evolution regardless of the evidence.


I agree 100% but I don't know if (Jammer) is in 100% agreement though.

At least we two seem to be on agreement then, which is nice.

 

[Tristesse]

I don't know those religions. I have no doubt that Atheists would hate Confucianism if it was a force in the world today, and they wouldn't be so fond of Buddhism if they actually understood it. I actually like most of the world's religions, I only hate Liberalism of which Atheism is a sect.

I don't think you know what atheism means. There are atheist of all stripes, conservitave, liberal, you name it. The only requirement is to not have a belief in a god, everything else is up for grabs.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I can't help but notice that you didn't address anything that I said. You even included a snippet from my post and yet....oh, well.

You are taking a Christian perspective here

I'm taking a logic based perspective here. You stated that, since the Old Testament didn't define God, any questions about God's nature were irrelevant. I pointed out that that made no logical sense unless you simply, by fiat, ruled out any potential sources of information about God(s) other than the Old Testament.

As I said before, I can see no valid reason to do that.

 

[fschmidt]

I can't help but notice that you didn't address anything that I said. You even included a snippet from my post and yet....oh, well.

I addressed everything, it's not my fault if you don't understand it.

I'm taking a logic based perspective here. You stated that, since the Old Testament didn't define God, any questions about God's nature were irrelevant. I pointed out that that made no logical sense unless you simply, by fiat, ruled out any potential sources of information about God(s) other than the Old Testament.

As I said before, I can see no valid reason to do that.

No you are not taking a logic based perspective, you are taking a Christian/Liberal perspective. There is no valid reason to organize religions based on beliefs, and as I explained, from the perspectives of most religions, it makes no sense. The reason that you do it is because you can't see past your Christian/Liberal perspective. For Christians, and to some degree Muslims, it makes sense to discuss God's nature because they have books that do this. I only follow the Old Testament, so I don't.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

No you are not taking a logic based perspective, you are taking a Christian/Liberal perspective. There is no valid reason to organize religions based on beliefs, and as I explained, from the perspectives of most religions, it makes no sense. The reason that you do it is because you can't see past your Christian/Liberal perspective. For Christians, and to some degree Muslims, it makes sense to discuss God's nature because they have books that do this. I only follow the Old Testament, so I don't.

You either can't understand what I'm saying or you're screwing with me. Either way, I've done all I care to do. I leave you to those with more patience than myself.

Peace.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have been thrown out of every secular/atheist/liberal forum that I have ever participated in, so I feel just fine generalizing.

I wonder why that is....

 

[fschmidt]

I wonder why that is....

I should add that I have never been thrown out of a religious forum including Christian, Muslim, and Jewish. At least now I know that this place a liberal cesspool and there is no more point for me to post here.

 

[camanintx]

Quite right. But I would go even further and say that most atheists (liberals) are the ones in denial about evolution because they think that evolution no longer applies to humans. This is simply atheistic faith in defiance of science.

Most atheists think evolution no longer applies to humans? Where do you get these ideas? I can pretty much guarantee that 99% of those who accept evolution think is applies to humans too.

At least now I know that this place a liberal cesspool and there is no more point for me to post here.

So soon? But you haven't even begun to demonstrate how evolution is wrong. Not that you ever could.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

At least now I know that this place a liberal cesspool and there is no more point for me to post here.

Com on man you're only 43 post strong. You haven't even scratched the surface yet. Stick around for a while maybe you'll learn a thing or two...unless you just want a place where people agree with you no questions asked. If that's the case then maybe RF is too much for you to handle.

 

[beerisit]

And you get to tell me what I do and do not believe?

I believe God made the universe. I do not believe God defies logic. If cells can form chemically, then they will. I do not have to deny chemistry if that is the case. Because chemistry is a part of the universe, and the universe is what God created, so in any case, God will be the ultimate creator of life. Neither I nor any of us here were there to know how life began. Science is what can tell us about this, and whatever comes out, that will be the mechanism that God used. Not through magic, but through the laws of the universe which he himself made. I have never seen a more rational approach to this, if you find one, then please enlighten me. It seems that some atheists cannot understand it when theists are also rational and still are theists. To you an all-powerful God has to be the typical creationist one?

I'm sorry for causing offense Rubyeyes, my comment was genuine. If you believe in an all powerful god then abiogenesis could be how he started everything. Hope I cleared that up.